Re: [SKOS] Closing ISSUE-71 ParallelMappingVocabulary

Antoine,

Will we have English definitions for all of these relations? I hope so.

Daniel

Quoting Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>:

>
> Dear all,
>
> Trying to decompose issues, as Sean requested.
> I will actually not try to decompose the discussion in [1] because it
> is a whole about ISSUE-71 and ISSUE-74.
>
> Shortly, [1] tries to show that mapping relationships and standard
> (paradigmatic) relationships are different. They result from different
> activities, and are situated on a different level with respect to
> authority and concept scheme design.
>
> Assuming this understanding is correct, this I propose the following
> resolution for ISSUE-71:
>
> RESOLUTION: The vocabulary for mapping links is parallel to the
> vocabulary for (paradigmatic) semantic relationships. It includes a
> skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch and skos:relatedMatch which mirror
> skos:broader, skos:narrower and skos:related.
>
> Antoine
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0062.html
>
>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I propose to OPEN ISSUE-71 ParallelMappingVocabulary [1] and   
>> consider CLOSEing it by the following proposal:
>>
>> RESOLUTION: The vocabulary for mapping links is parallel to the   
>> vocabulary for (paradigmatic) semantic relationships. It includes a  
>>  skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch and skos:relatedMatch which   
>> mirror skos:broader, skos:narrower and skos:related.
>>
>> This I think renders well the different discussions that took place  
>>  on the SKOS and SWD list, as well as previous mapping vocabulary   
>> proposals, such as [2], which inspired I guess the design of the   
>> former SKOS mapping vocabulary.
>> ISome more details: the text of [3] which we adopted as a   
>> resolution for ISSUE-39 Conceptual mapping link [4,5] includes the   
>> following
>>
>>> Rather, it assumes that mapping links, as a parallel vocabulary to  
>>>  the SKOS semantic relations (see discussion   
>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2007Dec/0033.html>),   
>>> should somehow "inherit" the semantics of these relations. With   
>>> the fundamental difference that mapping does not come with the   
>>> same confidence and authority status than established semantic   
>>> relations. For instance, a mapping statement may not be endorsed   
>>> by the creator(s) of the concepts that are mapped.
>>
>> This goes against ISSUE-71 [1] proposing the following option as an  
>>  possible alternative to keeping the parallel vocabulary for mapping:
>>
>>> use skos:broader, skos:narrower and skos:related for
>>> mapping, providing guidance
>>
>> I strongly disagree with it! It was precisely the reaction   
>> *against* using skos:broader/related/narrower for mapping which   
>> made me go for using parallel mapping vocabulary [3] (I was against  
>>  it at the begining). I don't want us to lose time having again the  
>>  same discussion!
>>
>> Notice that one of the reason for refusing to use the paradimatic   
>> broader/narrower/related also for mapping is linked to fundamental   
>> considerations related to norm and authority.
>> On the one hand, creating paradigmatic relationships such as   
>> skos:broader statement results from the core activity of KOS   
>> design, which is supposed to imply e.g. certain soundness   
>> properties for the resulting semantic network. Mapping is a   
>> different activity, where the aim is not to create a new coherent   
>> KOS but to bridge two KOS with relationships that may be of   
>> different qualitative and authoritative level.
>> My understanding is that the semantic commitment (with respect to   
>> the original intended meaning of the linked concepts) is much   
>> stronger when skos:broader than when using skos:broadMatch.
>> I would consider that this typically happens because a mapping link  
>>  between two schemes can be motivated by an application that has   
>> requirements which are completely different from each of the ones   
>> that guided the design of each mapped scheme.
>>
>> This is completely different from the assumption Alistair presents in [6]:
>>
>>> the current SKOS Reference WD assumes that the main reason for   
>>> having a "parallel" vocabularies for broader/narrower/related is   
>>> to provide a convenient mechanism for distinguishing links between  
>>>  concepts within the *same* scheme from links between concepts in   
>>> *different* schemes.
>>
>>
>> This is actually why in the Primer [7] we have allowed for the use   
>> of skos:broader *between* concept schemes and the use of   
>> skos:broadMatch *within* concept schemes. Because these relations   
>> are of different (epistemological??) level!
>>
>> Following this discussion, I would therefore make the following   
>> proposal to OPEN ISSUE-74 MappingPropertyConventions and consider   
>> to CLOSE it with the following proposal:
>>
>> RESOLUTION: Even though it is acknowledged that SKOS semantic   
>> relation properties will, in most applications, link conceptual   
>> resources that stand within a same scheme, nothing in the SKOS   
>> model prevents their use for concepts from different schemes.   
>> Similarly, even though it is acknowledged that SKOS mapping   
>> relation properties will, in most applications, link conceptual   
>> resources coming from different concept schemes, nothing in the   
>> SKOS model prevents their use for concepts that stand within a same  
>>  scheme.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/71
>> [2] http://jodi.tamu.edu/Articles/v01/i08/Doerr/
>> [3]   
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SkosDesign/ConceptualMapping/ProposalTwo?action=recall&rev=5 [4]   
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/39
>> [5] http://www.w3.org/2007/12/18-swd-minutes#item02
>> [7] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/SKOS/DraftPrimer
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I'm continuing to forward contributions from Alistair, in relation  
>>>  to [1] and to a mail that I will send next.
>>> Antoine
>>>
>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0060.html
>>>
>>> ----
>>> [ISSUE-74] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/74
>>> MappingPropertyConventions (RAISED)
>>> [ISSUE-71] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/71
>>> ParallelMappingVocabulary (RAISED)
>>>
>>> Quick fix? No.
>>>
>>> [ISSUE-74] asks, what are the usage conventions for SKOS mapping
>>> properties and SKOS semantic relation properties? [ISSUE-71] asks, do we
>>> need the properties skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch and
>>> skos:relatedMatch at all?
>>>
>>> These two issues go right to the heart of recommended usage for SKOS
>>> semantic relation and mapping properties. They are intimately related,
>>> as usage conventions for mapping properties depend on vocabulary
>>> available, and vice versa. I suggest we open these ASAP, to give time
>>> for preparation and due consideration of alternatives.
>>>
>>> To give a little background, the current SKOS Reference WD assumes that
>>> the main reason for having a "parallel" vocabularies for
>>> broader/narrower/related is to provide a convenient mechanism for
>>> distinguishing links between concepts within the *same* scheme from
>>> links between concepts in *different* schemes. This utility obviously
>>> depends on certain usage conventions being followed, i.e. that
>>> skos:broader, skos:narrower and skos:related are *only* used to link
>>> concepts in the same scheme, and that skos:broadMatch, skos:narrowMatch
>>> and skos:relatedMatch are *only* used to link concepts in different
>>> schemes. To restate the point, if these usage conventions aren't
>>> followed, then the main raison d'etre for skos:broadMatch,
>>> skos:narrowMatch and skos:relatedMatch falls apart.
>>>
>>> Note that [ISSUE-73] and [ISSUE-75] are both dependent on [ISSUE-71].
>>> [ISSUE-73] asks, which other properties is skos:exactMatch disjoint
>>> with? [ISSUE-75] asks, which other properties can be involved in
>>> property chain inclusions with skos:exactMatch? Both of these questions
>>> depend on the SKOS vocabulary recommended for mapping.
>>>
>>> Note also that [ISSUE-83] is closely related to [ISSUE-71] and
>>> [ISSUE-74], because the proposed inference pattern depends on usage
>>> conventions which are not yet established. However, I suggest we
>>> consider [ISSUE-83] separately as a lower priority, because the proposed
>>> inference pattern can probably not be supported, regardless of our
>>> decision on [ISSUE-74].
>>>
>>> [ISSUE-73] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/73
>>> [ISSUE-75] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/75
>>> [ISSUE-83] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/83
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2008 19:09:22 UTC